The intro reads: Plagued by reports of sloppy work, falsifications and exaggerations, climate research is facing a crisis of confidence. How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences? And would it really be the end of the world if temperatures rose by more than the much-quoted limit of two degrees Celsius?
This series features Steve McIntyre prominently, and well worth the read. See the series links below:
- Part 1: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research
- Part 2: Politically Charged Science
- Part 3: A Climate Rebel Takes on the Establishment
- Part 4: The Smoking Gun of Climatology
- Part 5: The Reality of Rising Sea Levels
- Part 6: The Myth of the Monster Storm
- Part 7: Climate Change’s Winners and Losers
- Part 8: The Invention of the Two-Degree Target
James Delingpole quips in the Telegraph:When the Germans give up on AGW you really do know it’s all over…
A relatively balanced report, but still stuck on models regarding the future.
This: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-686697,00.html gives you the printable version of all eight parts.
“Part 4: The Smoking Gun of Climatology”
“There are various pieces of indirect evidence that support the theory of global warming. Glaciers are receding, sea levels are rising and sea ice in the Arctic regions is disappearing. ”
Don’t “reporters” do research anymore? Apparently, if you want the facts, you have to go to the source and check them for yourself:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
More like an eight-page article than an article in eight parts. The treatment is pretty good even though it tends to accept several selling points of the global warming orthodoxy at least half-way (e.g., sea level rises).
I’m currently midway through reading Christopher Booker’s “The Real Global Warming Disaster: is the obsession with ‘climate change’ turning out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history?” It’s a very thorough pre-climategate synopsis. It does, however, seem like it was rushed to print — the typos I’m finding on every third page are not what I expect from a professionally published hardcover book. But I’d still rate it as the best account of the global warming controversy ever written by a journalist.
Schellnhuber says himself he invented the 2 degree target because temperatures have been up to 2 degrees at higher at times over the past 130,000 years.
Billions of dollars on crap. We need to seriously oust these crooks in power who have burned our money away like cigarette paper.
“the prediction that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — which was the result of a simple transposition of numbers ”
Come again?
My German is a bit spotty, but, let me summarize:
Eein AGW Dunkoff Science Fraudenscheitz CRU fahrt un Frakenstein Jones. Schnitzel Mann mat un Convalute Data to Stick Hockey for Gore under table transact Billion Kroner/Deutsch with Carbon Credit sgeem. Attension Max -1.0 c with Thermometer +/- .5 F acurate to Flugshaft Bomb Pattern WWI.
Okay. All clear?
“How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences?”
They’re not predictions, they’re projections. Does that answer the question?
juanslayton (19:57:02),
The actual source of the 2035 date was some fellow in India who gave that speculative date to a reporter doing an interview for New Scientist. The New Scientist article was the source for the WWF’s claim using the same date. And, finally, the WWF piece was the source for IPCC using the same date.
It’s really embarrassing to cite a polemic by WWF based on speculation published in a periodical, but not quite so embarrassing to claim that it was just a typographical error.
Someone found a paper published by a Russian, if I recall correctly, and that paper said 2350 would be the date for deglaciation.
Et voila! Claim that 2035 was just an innocent transposition of 2350, and ignore the actual speculative, non-peer-reviewed newsy article that was the source for the claim.
John Wright (19:35:41) : … gives you the printable version of all eight parts.
Thanks, John.
Micajah,
We have the same understanding of the story behind 2035. But I am astonished that the Spiegel reporters apparently are not aware of it. Makes you wonder….
Yes, a step in the right direction that I think (I hope) will have a lot of influence on events in the coming weeks. Two points need addressing immediately:
1) “McIntyre doggedly asked for access to the raw data. Jones was just as dogged in denying his requests, constantly coming up with new, specious reasons for his rejections. Unfortunately for Jones, however, McIntyre’s supporters eventually included people who know how to secretly hack into computers and steal data.”
The hacker/theft myth needs to be finally laid to rest. Taking this up with these journalists may fall on sympathetic ears. It may be the opportune moment for the whistle-blower to reveal his or her identity.
2) “German climatologist Hans von Storch now wants to see an independent institution recalculate the temperature curve, and he even suggests that the skeptics be involved in the project. He points out, however, that processing the data will take several years.”
I think we would all agree to that and we should push for it. It is the reason I alluded to “sympathetic ears” above.
He appears to accept that some degree of global warming is occurring, but he probably should have mentioned that there has been no warming for 15 years, and cooling for the past 5. Furthermore, these non warming events are in spite of the fact the Jim Hansen and Phil Jones are cooking the books like crazy trying demonstrate that the warming is real.
The time for treating these guys like they are respectable scientists has past. This whole shameful episode needs to be investigated like the crime that it is…
There is no anthropogenic global warming. There never has been. Everything, and I mean everything presented by Gore and Mann and Jones and Hansen and their ilk is nothing more and nothing less then absolutely coldly calculated fraud.
A decent attempt at tackling the whole picture and calling spades as spades….something no American journal would have the kahunas to do.
Nonetheless there were some inconsistencies like this one:
“Wind shear, however, is likely to increase in a warmer climate. For this reason, many computer models now even point to a decline in hurricane activity.”
“On balance, temperature differences on the Earth’s surface will decrease, which in turn will even reduce wind speeds — meaning the much-feared monster storms are unlikely to materialize.”
Ehhhhhh….these two statements do not completely jive.
Also the sea level rise page has alot of bunk in it:
“Two factors influence the sea level.”
Just two?? Come on, guys!
At any rate, this article is an admirable attempt to get at the truth, regardless of the obligatory, cookie-cutter AGW assumptions.
Not to worry, Speigel contributors. We sift through the chaff. Nice job overall!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“We climatologists can only describe possible futures,” Storch points out. “It’s also possible that things will be completely different.”
And they get paid for this?!
The most schizophrenic article I have read in a long time.
The sky is still falling, sort of, only not in the scientific areas that can be checked with empirical data. It’s holding up OK there.
So relax, the alarmists were mostly wrong, except when they tell us that things are getting really bad soon, and that there will be palm trees on Helgoland.
It is getting closer to a reasonable narrative. Still a ways to go.
Der Spiegel disappoints…
I enjoyed this description of McIntyre in Part 3!
——–
Steve McIntyre lives in a small brick house near downtown Toronto. It is a Sunday afternoon and he is sitting at his well-worn desk, illuminated only by a small energy-saving bulb on the ceiling.
This man, with his thinning gray hair, is an unlikely adversary for climatologists, and yet he is largely responsible for the current tumult in their field.
“This is the computer I used to begin doing the recalculations,” he says, holding a six-year-old Acer laptop with a 40-gigabyte hard drive. “My wife finally gave me a new one for Christmas.”
The climate projections are based on trends that in turn have been adjusted into the raw data. The projectors assume that the trends created by the data manipulators will proceed unabated to the quarterback, and take his knees out.
The real world says differently already, and has blown the play dead.
10-15 years of no warming or downright cooling has ensued.
Nature made the call, and has thrown the flag on the projectionists and the manipulators. It just so happens that Steve McIntyre did the instant replay and the ruling on the global field of climate stands. 15 yards, loss of credibility.
From Part 7 comes a most revealing statement:
Excuse me – “old flood plains”? Sounds like climate change will, in this instance, create conditions that once existed in the past, so, how is this bad? Seems that the climate is cycling back to a previous state.
“It will become more arid, however, in many subtropical regions. Industrialized nations, which bear the greatest culpability for global warming, will be most heavily affected.”
It was pretty even-handed until page 7. Then it became apparent that even though the entire foundation has vanished, the authors believe the house is still standing.
Bishop Hill covered some of this recently over here where he specifically focused on Peter Webster’s (Georgia Tech) comments on CRU data
johnnythelowery (20:04:57) :
I think what you were trying to say was:
CRU Klima Betrüger Phil Jones und seine Mitverschwörer American Michale Mann fabriziert die berüchtigte einzigen Baum Eishockey aus der Luft-Stick für den IPCC Third Assessment Report im Jahr 1998./
Which thanks to the new enhanced translator at the IPCC is the German equivalent of:
CRU climate pioneer Phil Jones and the eminently respected American climate expert Michale Mann created the universally accepted paleo-temperature graphic for the IPCC third assessment report in 1998.
Just The Facts (19:36:48) asked :
Don’t “reporters” do research anymore?
Alarmist Climate Science is designed to be too complicated for the average reporter (oh, sorry, “journalist”) or reader to understand, so the liberal arts-trained journalists just repeat what they’ve been told by the sciency-type people.
It’s better to be safe than sorry, doncha know.
juanslayton (19:57:02) : ” ‘the prediction that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — which was the result of a simple transposition of numbers’
“Come again?”
A transposition that was quickly discovered and then allowed to remain uncorrected.
johnnythelowery (20:04:57) : “My German is a bit spotty, but, let me summarize: Eein AGW Dunkoff Science Fraudenscheitz CRU fahrt un Frakenstein Jones. Schnitzel Mann mat un Convalute Data to Stick Hockey for Gore under table transact Billion Kroner/Deutsch with Carbon Credit sgeem. Attension Max -1.0 c with Thermometer +/- .5 F acurate to Flugshaft Bomb Pattern WWI.”
Robustlich!
Should be “dumkopf”… 😉
johnnythelowery (20:04:57)
Hi Johnny, was lol about your summary, greetings from Berlin!
juanslayton (20:34:08) : Don’t wonder! The Spiegel journalists are true believers of the AGW course (so my source says), the sensation is, that they wrote something at all about climategate, and IPCCgate! Wonder who kicked their behind, probably the readers, who send them loads of E-mails, mocking their ludicrous, regularly very bad informed, articles about the item.
They are still holding on to all the old cornerstones: Sea ice and glaciers are melting, CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, the computer- models are allright, it’s just a little adjustment needed concerning clouds.
You should also read the response of Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf to the “Spiegel” article here: http://www.wissenslogs.de/wblogs/blog/klimalounge/medien-check/2010-04-01/klimaforscher-bashing-beim-spiegel .
I try to translate only the last para.:
“The “Spiegel” article is not a case of science but a case of policy. This year is the year of decision about the future of the German climate policy: In fall the government wants to declare the aims of the policy of energy. The essential will be: Shall we see an enduring U-turn to green energies or not?
In the global context the question is: can we limit the global warming at two deg. as it’s demanded by “Copenhagen Accord” or will this chance passing by? The power struggle about this is in full swing.
A U-turn in energy is to avoided in generating doubts of it’s urgency. So the scandal stories about climate research are made up and this demonstrates that there are no good and fair minded arguments against a definitive climate policy. ”
Prof. Rahmstorf is a scientist not a politician we should remember!!
I had read this yesterday. As a relative newcomer to the “climate wars”, what impressed me the most about this article was the recurring theme of “uncertainties” in the current state of the art (and artifice?!) of “climate science” – which, to the best of my knowledge, has been conspicuously absent in most MSM coverage. If I may borrow from Martha Stewart … “This is a good thing.”
The cat’s out of the bag. AGW Alarmists/believers have it tough now.
It just goes to show:
Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. — Niels Bohr, Danish physicist (1885 – 1962)
Prediction is very hard, especially about the future – Yogi Berra and/or Casey Stengel
Too funny. Russia & Canada are going to be so much warmer, according to Der Spiegel;- Germany too! They just can’t resist giving bad advice to politicians. The author is the politicians’ little friend, giving such helpful wrong advice that’s going to cost people large sums when they’re not ready for cold weather. It’s really great that they continue to make unlikely predictions that people will notice when they don’t come true. I’d give the article an award… in the best comedy category.
Hi Just the Facts
No “reporters” don’t do research anymore. This was written by Scott Adams “Reporter’s are faced with the daily choice of painstakingly researching stories or writing whatever people tell them. Both approaches pay the same”.
I was amused when I first read it not any more. The larger proportion of journalists are employed in the public relations companies. They produce canned video and text material. The journalist in the MSM picks which they will use without much thought. The MSM “news” is about entertainment to sell a product little else. Here in OZ we have an ABC (government funded) journos in it seem to pick those that fit the their ideology instead. For instance there is a “science” journalist with them who confidently stated the sea level would rise 100 metres in the near future. Did not raise an eyebrow he is still accepted as credible. My stance these days is any science on the MSM is most likely incorrect.
This article is like the curate’s egg; good in parts (but also bad in parts).
“Despite the enormous uncertainties, there is agreement on at least one issue: Global warming can no longer be stopped.” What agreement?
@dh7fb (23:09)
He is an deep ideologist, as scientist with political missionary zeal.
“Tor Hansson (21:07:28) :
The most schizophrenic article I have read in a long time.”
Yeah. Only Der Spiegel can deliver at this level of shizoidness.
Der Focus, the conservative competition, whipped up an article about ClimateGate in January i think, now Der Spiegel had to deliver *something* and they tried their best to bend the story backward in part 7 – “And in only 20 years, snow could become a thing of the past in Germany.”
Oh my. It’s a Frankenstein article.
And Rahmstorf doesn’t disappoint in his answer at
http://www.wissenslogs.de/wblogs/blog/klimalounge/medien-check/2010-04-01/klimaforscher-bashing-beim-spiegel
Der Spiegel’s attempt at reporting the facts is of course too much of a deviation from the party line for Rahmstorf, and his writeup is of a style that is comparable to press releases from Berlin from 70 years ago. I leave it at that.
Es bleiben im Raum: Keitel, Jodl, Krebs und. Burgdorf.
“Unfortunately, the computer simulations that predict the climate of the future are still too imprecise to be able to draw reliable conclusions for each individual country or region.”
This is just one of dozens of references to models “predicting” (poorly or otherwise) the future. For heaven’s sake – to believe that one can create a Super Machine that can tell the future is utter madness. As everyone reading this blog knows by now – the models “project,” not “predict,”and when they “project,” they simply “project” whatever they are told to “project” by the programmers with all their assumptions, prejudices and vested interests. Propaganda tools.
Have to say, I hated the article – it was written by an imbecile.
Ref: Doug in Seattle (19:25:20)
I fully accept that models are not yet very accurate, particularly when it comes to precipitation:
http://www.climatedata.info/Precipitation/Precipitation/global.html
On the other hand a lot of our infrastructure is based on the false premise that a statistical analysis of the past can be a reliable guide to future.
Forecasts based on model projections have of course been pushed beyond the limits of credibility but I believe that climate modelling, which takes full account of natural and anthropogenic warming, is worth pursuing.
dh7fb
I wrote a general analysis of RAHMSTORF’S screed in ENGLISH.
Others can click on the pgosselin just above to read it.
KBK (21:38:42) :
“It will become more arid, however, in many subtropical regions. Industrialized nations, which bear the greatest culpability for global warming, will be most heavily affected.”
It was pretty even-handed until page 7. Then it became apparent that even though the entire foundation has vanished, the authors believe the house is still standing.
KBK your observation is spot on. Despite the fact that the reporters are reporting that there is no evidence that industrialised nations are responsible for global warming, they, or their publisher, are still “believers”. Astonishing.
The Germans invented most of the chemical industry. If they wanted to, they could cool the Earth.
Of course the democratic era is now over. Public opinion – who needs it? Certainly not the EUrocrats. Across Europe the EU is a hated organisation; referendums are dead; the ‘plebs’ are ignored:- the EU, and ‘anti-global warming’ policies, proceed apace. In the final end, to misquote Dylan, I fear that we will lose the war after winning every battle.
jorgekafkazar (22:24:50) :
juanslayton (19:57:02) : ” ‘the prediction that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — which was the result of a simple transposition of numbers’
“Come again?”
The original source said it was 2350.
cheers David
We have come full circle. Interesting to see that the president of the German Academy of Science and Engineering state that ‘scientists should never be wedded to their theories’. Very interesting (but not stupid)…….. compare the famous Max Planck quote ‘a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing it opponents and making them see the light, but rather because it opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it’. Ah yes, a ‘new scientific truth’ – which is what the climate change juggernaut was hell bent in the fast lane to convince the world – that their models (with all their uncertainties) were the new scientific truth, and rather then wait until ‘death do us part’ of the non-believers, to make their model predictions the new ‘truth’. Sounds horribly how the Nazis (no reflection on Germans, just Nazis) were the ones who wished to rapidly convince the world that the scientific proof of Darwinism ( the survival of the fitness) meant that inferior phenotypes should be eliminated from the breeding population. Darwin didn’t mean that and nor should the true believers of climate change holocaust predictions mock (belittle, what-have-you) that people who challenge their views be cast aside as inferior cretins. Their conclusions/beliefs should be challenged in a rigorous objective manner and not given the power of ‘scientific proof’. To claim that anyone who dares challenges is dangerous is simply leading the human race into another nightmare of Nazi and Orwellian proportions (OK, so his predictions have not fully come to past, but his dire warnings to mankind still stand).
Reply: Ok this little wandering into Godwin territory stops now. No discussion of Nazis, the Holocaust, or Eugenics. ~ ctm
I think Steve Mc has come up with a huge one as well apparently could be more damaging for UEA than climategate
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/02/keith-should-say/#more-10626
@johnnythelowery (20:04:57) :
—————————————————————
My German is a bit spotty
—————————————————————
German teaching tape: “Die Sauerkraut ist in mein Lederhosen”
The Curate’s egg analogy is a good one for this article, but the more closely one reads it, the more the good parts of the egg shrink. Why can’t journalists at least do a little research on their sources to check veracity? It’s not so very difficult to get accurate information on Polar ice and glacial behaviour. I guess that growing up in a culture where Green mythology is given credence must make it difficult for German journalists see past the nonsense that has been extant since long before their birth.
ctm
Agreed. Replace any reference to the N word to ‘Orwellian’ and reset the online discussion of this topic to less than 1.
The interesting thing about it being Der Spiegel, is that as far as I can recall, the players in Clmategate were British and US. I’ve no doubt that if the CRU had been in Germany and it was Miquel Mann who invented the hockey stick, then the reaction of the US and British press to climategate would have taken an altogether different tone.
It also highlights the subtle differences in scientific culture between the various countries. The attitude of “science knows best” could only have come from the US and UK – and I doubt you’d ever catch a German ignoring simple engineering principles like trying to “average out the errors” from using the wrong instrumentation for the wrong job.
Fundamentally, I think the balanced approach in Germany and the UK parliament’s hostility to engineering and love-in with science (typified by the way the “science and engineering committee” became “science and technology”) is the reason why the UK has the third-rate climategate “scientists” who easily pull the wool over our scientific/engineering illiterate politicians who are so economically incompetent they then get us to pay out billions for bird-mincers made in Germany/Denmark.
vorsprung durch technik
Which I think is translated as: “invented here made elsewhere!”
If all the climate models can do is project, what is the difference between these elaborate configurations and a pencil line with the aid of a straightedge? Both results are the line between two predetermined points extended forward.
“Despite the enormous uncertainties, there is agreement on at least one issue: Global warming can no longer be stopped.”
So if temperatures decline even with statistical manipulation, they’re going to have some explaining to do.
This is close to the type of journalism that one should expect. American media outlets, the ones that are left, should read and take notice. Der Spiegel is a little biased toward the AGW side of the story but nothing like America’s “Communist News Netwrk.”
“The myth of the monster storm”
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Link from Florida state university – Shows cyclone energy and hurricane activity. We seem to be at th 30 year low.
“….. the average temperature on Earth rose by 0.166 degrees Celsius per decade between 1975 and 1998. This, according to Jones, was the clear result of his research and that of many other scientists.
“I am 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed,” Jones says imploringly. “I did not manipulate or fabricate any data.””
??? Phil, that’s it?? The climate warmed? 2/5 of a degree in 22 years? You and others spent 10s of millions (if not billions) of dollars looking at data of highly questionable value, from a miniscule number of points of a vast and super dynamic system, (global weather) in which the trend average of any singular component is not only virtually meaningless, but the “trend” up or down of which was and is the ONLY absolute – – and all you got to say is for THAT (extremely short) particular period of time…… there was a trend? UP? Implicitly then, the trend NOW, is the other way – down?
Phil – you are one brilliant dude! And I mean it. That whole whining thing is just an act, right? I mean you got the whole world focusing on the data – manipulated, not manipulated – and NOT that for millions of dollars the only thing you produced was – THERE WAS A TREND! AND IT WAS UP! FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME!
Dumb like a fox, Phil. Dumb like a fox and smiling all the way to the bank.
I am a firm believer that the AGW hype is false and my personal studies since the 1970’s show a very strong relationship between solar activity and average temperature (I was predicting the warming trend when Hansen was predicting a new ice age). I also believe we are still in the inter glacial period and average temperature is slowly raising. The alternative is back into a minimum so please keep the warming coming.
A fascinating article that ties in with this one, but with a ‘man on the street’ perspective: click
[scroll down a page to start]
These journalists don’t seem to understand.
If, in a particular field of science, scientists have found it necessary to cook the books to prove their point, it can be safely assumed there is no point to prove.
John Wright 20:39:16 (4/2) quotes Der speigel and comments:
2) “German climatologist Hans von Storch now wants to see an independent institution recalculate the temperature curve, and he even suggests that the skeptics be involved in the project. He points out, however, that processing the data will take several years.”
I think we would all agree to that and we should push for it. It is the reason I alluded to “sympathetic ears” above.
TWO (2) YEARS — NONSENSE. Simply put Chiefio (E.M. Smith) in charge and the work can be done in a day or two. The data has already been mined and the “moment” (Year, Month) of scientific scam identified, country by country, region by region. Link to “Out of Africa” as one example: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/global-warming-from-africa-contagious-spreading-at-100-miles-per-year/
Don’t you wonder WHO put up the money — and the central planning — for all of this? A punishment of “drawn-and-quartered” before the eyes of the world comes to mind. My guess is that the judgment of guilty falls on “those” who have restricted the development of energy in and by the U.S. so that all our energy dollars could go into “their” thieving hands. My history says that “the great conspiracy” began in the 1970s and the AGW scam in the late 1980s. Take a close look at the dates of the great dying off of thermometers on chiefio.wordpress.com.
Ya gotta take time to read and absorb, though.
Despite many criticisms made of the article here, I’m encouraged. At last the main-stream media are addressing the matter of the uncertainties which for too long they’ve seen fit to over-look.
While there may be errors or at least statements which people here question, we cannot expect such a complex subject to be easily reduced into a digestible form for the lay-reader (of which I’m one).
I would caution critics of the article against falling into the trap of claiming that AGW is not happening at all (RobertM (20:43:40) :). It seems to me that the objections to the alarmist and IPCC claims rest on arguments that “the data doesn’t support those claims”.
To claim that the data “proves” that AGW isn’t happening at some level or that there isn’t an anthropogenic component to global temperatures seems just as specious as the alarmist claims. The point of the argument (as expressed on this and other well considered blogs) is that the current measurements and known processes are insufficient to decide convincingly in favour or against any putative AGW.
“Erik (03:45:25) :
@johnnythelowery (20:04:57) :
—————————————————————
My German is a bit spotty
—————————————————————
German teaching tape: “Die Sauerkraut ist in mein Lederhosen””
You’ll never get rid of your spots using that crap.
?Invented in the US and UK?
That Means -in the ‘Game of Nations’- anyone except the Yanks and Brits who are ‘claiming’ to support AGW and Copenhagen are doing so for ulterior motives. Is it possible they see a way to put these two ‘Super Bozos’ in the poor house? Based on events of the last few years, I believe that’s exactly what they thought and intend. Let’s see, how many ways are there to bankrupt your enemy? Ah… Total War, nah.. too messy! Ah… Cold War, nah.. too long! Ah… Climate Change and The Copenhagen Accord, oh yes..just right!
Everyone who can speak Ho”ch Chinese raise your right arm, click your heels together real fast, and shout “Seig Heil Peking!” three times, as loud as you can.
History is like a beach! Always changing1 Always the same!
In Part 8, Time to React, Hans von Storch says: “We climatologists can only describe possible futures. It’s also possible that things will be completely different”.
What a self serving, cover your ass statement.
Mike Haseler
I think your german is a little rusty.” vorsprung durch technik” actually translates as follows:-
vorsprung = forward ejecting
durch = duck specifically, but can mean just bird in common parlance.
Technik = engineering method
Thus ” forward ejecting bird engineering method”, or idiomatically, “bird murdering machine”, which reduces ultimately to the well known phrase “wind turbine”. Q.E.D.
“James Delingpole quips in the Telegraph:When the Germans give up on AGW you really do know it’s all over…”
I don’t intend to spoil the party but….!
1. How many Germans read these publications?
2. What happens in the real world, is quite depressing!
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/depressing.html
Without a sea change in political policies the AGW doctrine is not stopped.
The general public is led to the slaughterhouse without any serious resistance.
Really depressing.
dh7fb (23:00:49) : of course he would write that he works at the Potsdam Institute for Cliamte Impact Research. It is his Job.
“McIntyre asserts that he believes in Climate Change”
That is pitiful.
I suspect the middle age hippies (flower Krauts) will discover it is the Greenie weenie gubments that are the ones pushing control and authority.
Several million more will want to not say “Seig Heil Peking” as noted above.
TWO (2) YEARS — NONSENSE. Simply put Chiefio (E.M. Smith) in charge and the work can be done in a day or two.
I thought the data was supposed to be inaccessible.
Seriously, GHCN raw data has been available for years. Chiefo and anyone else has had a long time to do a global analysis that takes only ‘a day or two’. Hell of an oversight after years of proclaiming the global record warm-biased.
The description of Jones seems tailor-made to inspire sympathy:
“Life has become “awful” for Phil Jones”, he “…needs medication to fall sleep. He feels a constant tightness in his chest. He takes beta-blockers to help him get through the day. He is gaunt and his skin is pallid. He is 57, but he looks much older. He was at the center of a research scandal that hit him as unexpectedly as a rear-end collision on the highway.” He sits on his chair at the hearings, looking miserable, sometimes even trembling. The Internet is full of derisive remarks about him, as well as insults and death threats. “We know where you live,” his detractors taunt.
Jones is finished: emotionally, physically and professionally. He has contemplated suicide several times recently, and he says that one of the only things that have kept him from doing it is the desire to watch his five-year-old granddaughter grow up.”
Nope, no sympathy here. He made his bed. Sooner or later, dishonesty takes its toll. As a matter of fact, I suspect the “suicide attempts” are ploys on his part to try to garner sympathy, and keep attention focused away from what he and his cohorts have done.
That is no “baby” in the climatologists’ bathwater, but a hideous Hydra. The IPCC has to go, and investigations of possible malfeasance begun. The corruption is deep-seated, and “climate science” is rotten to the core.
M White (05:16:20) :
“Despite the enormous uncertainties, there is agreement on at least one issue: Global warming can no longer be stopped.”
So if temperatures decline even with statistical manipulation, they’re going to have some explaining to do.
First they’ll have to explain why they thought they *could* stop a natural, cyclical process in the first place.
Last week, a geologist asked me where he could get an attachable hood for his winter-weight flight jacket, and added, “I think I’m going to need it.”
pyromancer76 : John Wright 20:39:16 (4/2) quotes Der speigel and comments: “German climatologist Hans von Storch now wants to see an independent institution recalculate the temperature curve, … TWO (2) YEARS — NONSENSE
pyromancer76, two years is very optimistic and in my opinion such a slap dash job won’t be much more believable than the present rubbish. The problem is not taking a load of readings and averaging. It is trying to realistically quantify such effects as urban heating and the affect of automation and other changes to instrumentation on the historic global temperature curve. We can’t replay history, all we can do is try to estimate how historic measurements may have been affected by a host of as yet unquantified changes.
If I were in charge, I personally would require a site visit to each and every station both present and historic! At each site I would require staff to collect of as much information as is available on the changes to the environment around the sites since 1850. As there are thousands of sites, and as assembly the information, doing the site visits and appraising the results on each and every site would take a minimum of a few months, we are talking something like 100-1000 person years of work. Even recruiting and training the people to undertake this appraisal is likely going to take a year – let alone getting the sceptics like us to agree to the huge funding necessary to do the job properly.
Then you need time to run some scientific trials to see how certain changes affect temperature. Quite literally you are talking about taking many sections of e.g. virgin forest characterising them before urbanisation and then building small towns to carry out a real scientific characterisation of urban heating. You also need to set up field trials to compare human and automated measurements in organisational control structures allowing the typical behaviour you would have found in historic sites. (That’s a whole department!)
It’s easily going to have a yearly budget in the hundreds of millions, it will have the energy footprint of several towns and the total cost will be over $1billion and a minimum of a decade to really get to grips with urban heating effects so that we can tease out of the historic data that change which is natural and that which is human.
just waiting for Mr. Mann to rear his ugly head now when the worst seems to have blown over, making the some old regurgitations, doing his high priest chants on the urgency to save the world…barf
Interesting poll though:
http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/spiegelsurvey.jpg
Agree with Mike Post (02:03:09) :
During Part 7 it starts to become typically irrational and disappointing:
“…says Marotzke…And in only 20 years, snow could become a thing of the past in Germany. All of this can no longer be averted.”
The author proudly accepts this. Dear oh dear.
In a sad regurgitation of a decade-old alarmist statement by Doctor David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia… within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”. You can read this nonsense here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
That was from March 2000. Nearly 10 years ago to the day.
If this article demonstrates one thing, it is that advocacy journalism still exists. I fear just as much from reading an article that has the hallmarks of a critical evaluation, but still manages to smuggle astrology into it, than a piece that is flagrantly apocalyptic.
The article? Not all good, but as some commenters have alluded to, the language and context is more courteous of those that disagree and editorially supportive of those sceptical viewpoints.
Mike Haseler (07:11:44) :
pyromancer76 : John Wright 20:39:16 (4/2)
I am in favor of Joe Bastardi’s view to halt any policies on our climate and simply watch the developments for the next 30 years that will include a period where a negative Pacific and negative Atlantic Oscillation put their stamp on the temperature data and allows us more time to study and observe.
There is absolutely no need for any drastic measures at this moment in time, except for those who promoted this scam for political and financial gains.
“R. de Haan (06:54:18) :
“James Delingpole quips in the Telegraph:When the Germans give up on AGW you really do know it’s all over…”
I don’t intend to spoil the party but….!
1. How many Germans read these publications?”
http://www.answers.com/topic/der-spiegel
“Der Spiegel (German pronunciation: [deːɐ ˈʃpiːɡəl], “The Mirror”) is a German weekly magazine, published in Hamburg. It is one of Europe’s largest publications of its kind with a weekly circulation of more than one million”
“Reply: Ok this little wandering into Godwin territory stops now. No discussion of Naz*s, the Hol*caust, or Eug*nics. ~ ctm”
Just as the goose steppers return north? Where will they go now? http://jschumacher.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/10/geese_police3.jpg
“R. de Haan (06:54:18) :
[…]
1. How many Germans read these publications?
”
Really really many, if you mean how many read the Spiegel.
1 Million pieces printed weekly. Lots more people like me will be propelled to their website, lots of other print publications will report what the Spiegel has printed. The national TV news will probably comment on it. For Germany, it’s massive.
“Mike Haseler (04:47:03) :
[…]
The attitude of “science knows best” could only have come from the US and UK – and I doubt you’d ever catch a German ignoring simple engineering principles like trying to “average out the errors” from using the wrong instrumentation for the wrong job.”
Try Rahmstorf for a start. In the run-up to COP15 he published an alarmist sea-level rise extrapolation that was frowned upon even in AGW circles. We have people with an agenda too!
“Climate probe finds problems, but not with warming”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/the_first_of_the_numerous.html
“I’m Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what’s happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature’s resources increases.”
The BBC.
Fat chance we are going to stop the madness as the opposition play’s the game with no respect to any rules at all.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21566
Nobody is listening!
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/04/nobodys-listening.html
The five “open questions” are terribly disappointing. Apparently, the writers take for granted that any temperature increase is anthropogenic. That word appears only once, in paragraph two, in the entire series. Everywhere else, they leave the impression that “temperature increase” is the issue.
Unfortunately, this is the classic error that almost all journalists make. You hardly ever hear a discussion of “global warming” that makes that distinction.
Very disappointing.
The suspicious theory of AGW achieved its undeserved scientific following because its adherents, consciously or not, liked where it took us. It was a useful tool for the public policy objectives of environmentalists, conservationists, socialists and even, on occasion, political conservatives worried about the depletion of fossil fuel sources or simply promoting nuclear (remember Margret Thatcher’s role in all this?).
The Spiegel article is consistent in many aspects with a “new story” designed to preserve the policy objectives of the “old story” in the wake of the old story’s having come unraveled. The new story is that while the old story was false in its many particulars and therefore false in its promoted “certainty”, it might be true in some unknown regards and this results in “uncertainty” rather in “refutation”.
Now we get to the bottom line in all this: “We should do all the things we would have done had the old story been certain, as an insurance policy against uncertainty.”
Its adherents will find the “new story” a poor policy tool compared with the “old story”. The new story lacks the stampeding qualities of the old story and one cannot drive the human herd off an economic cliff without a stampede.
For those of you who are interested in Joe Bastardi’s opinions, here is his blog:
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather
Enneagram (06:58:19) :
“McIntyre asserts that he believes in Climate Change”
That is pitiful.
———————–
Only an idiot would not.
But since it is capitalized, is that man-induced climate change? That’s another beast altogether. Their terminology lends itself well to propaganda.
“Despite the controversy, most climatologists agree that in the end the general view of climate change will not have changed significantly. Almost all share the basic conviction that we are headed for warmer times.”
“There are various pieces of indirect evidence that support the theory of global warming. Glaciers are receding, sea levels are rising and sea ice in the Arctic regions is disappearing. “
“Other central predictions of climatologists, such as that involving a noticeable rise in sea levels, would also have to be reevaluated. How high sea levels will go in the future is already a matter of debate.”
“On the other hand, hardly any glaciologists doubt that sea levels will be significantly higher along coastlines by the end of the century.”
“Another effect that is not as easy to calculate is the melting of mountain glaciers and inland ice in Greenland and Antarctica. Most of the melting today is happening in mountain glaciers, from the Andes to the Himalayas.”
“Glaciologists speculate that parts of the Western Antarctic and, to a greater extent, Greenland, are melting more quickly than initially assumed.”
“Despite the enormous uncertainties, there is agreement on at least one issue: Global warming can no longer be stopped.”
“Even if humanity were to stop burning coal, oil and natural gas immediately, there would still be a moderate temperature increase in the next two to three decades. This is because the planetary weather system reacts with a certain delay to the greenhouse gases that have already been emitted into the atmosphere.”
“But no, he adds, he happens to be someone who has acquired inside knowledge about a looming disaster, knowledge that he cannot keep to himself. “If I’m a passenger on a ship and I see, through my binoculars, that we’re headed for an iceberg,” says Schellnhuber, “I have to warn the captain immediately.”
” it isn’t about stopping a luxury ocean liner, but about the massive effort that is required to end the age of oil and coal as quickly as possible.”
It’s an improvement for Der Spiegel, but still takes one thing for granted; That it’s all man’s fault.
How is little bear Knute doin’ in Germany? What feedback on warming does he express at the zoo?
This was a great read…thanks for the heads up. I think it is very unfair and completely inaccurate to characterize the artice as saying “The Germans have given up on AGW.” This is not at all what the article is saying. In fact, if you look at one of the last few paragraphs in the article series it says:
(regarding AGW): “But exactly how far away is that iceberg? How much time is left to steer the ship onto an alternate course? And how great is the risk of collision? These are key questions. In reality, it isn’t about stopping a luxury ocean liner, but about the massive effort that is required to end the age of oil and coal as quickly as possible…”
This was a direct quote from the author of the article. Doesn’t sound to me like giving up on anything, but actually (and this is truly the tone of the article) that there is time to make changes but we need to stop the hyperbole from scientists and political gamemanship. The article does not deny or give up on AGW, though I understand James Delingpole’s WISHES that the article said that…
@Gary Young Hladik (20:10:58) :
“How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences?”
They’re not predictions, they’re projections. Does that answer the question?
– – – – – – –
You’re mincing words. How can a projection not be a prediction, when the dictionary says otherwise?
pro·jec·tion (prə-jěk’shən)
n.
4. A prediction or an estimate of something in the future, based on present data or trends.
[source 1=”www.dictionary.com” language=”:”][/source]
In the case of something as complex and poorly understood as climate:
projection = extrapolation = speculation
Ron (01:43:01) :
“I believe that climate modelling, which takes full account of natural and anthropogenic warming, is worth pursuing.”
Therein lies the problem. The current generation of climate models do not account for very real and likely quite important climate processes such as water vapor, clouds, particulates and ocean circulation. They are are accounted for in the models by the use of fudge factors to fit the models to past temperature data (as divined by CRU), which while allowing for model convergence, do not represent reality.
Beyond the lack of reality in the models we have politicians and bureaucrats who think that these models and linear trends in cyclical processes are reality. They mistake the chaotic failure of the models with tipping points in the real climate system rather than a failure of the modelers to accurately simulate reality.
Much of this is due to activists within the climate field who have oversold their product, but a large part of the blame also is lies with the failure of honest scientists to explain the uncertainties and limitations of models.
My own experience with models in groundwater is that the simpler ones are more reliable and that even those cannot project very far forward temporally or spatially.
I cringe when colleagues present models, even limited simple ones, in support of public policy. Think about the models that were used to set quotas for the North Atlantic cod fishery.
“Enneagram (06:58:19) :
“McIntyre asserts that he believes in Climate Change”
That is pitiful.”
It’s not, as climate change is and has been an everlasting reality.
Don’t walk into the verbal trap of the alarmists.
German cancellor Mrs. Merkel said few years ago the “surprising” statement:
“Climate change is a fact.” In her eyes an alarming one. Well …
I thought this was a step in the right direction from Der Spiegel. Here’s hoping it will be the first of many articles with a sceptical slant on CAGW.
So two degrees C is the limit? Why?
How much warmer was it than today when the Vikings thrived in their Greenland settlement?
How much colder was it than today during the little ice age the followed fairly closely after that time?
How much colder was it than today say 50,000 years ago when ice mountains were still building during the last period of glaciation?
How much warmer was it than today between 10,000 and 7,000 years ago when interglacial period ice melt raised sea levels between 120 and 150 meters before stabilizing at today’s levels thus allowing the start of urbanic culture?
A major issue with AGW climate models is that not a one can replicate the range of changes in temperature up and down that we have experienced over time. They all seem to assume that as CO2 goes up so does temperature and there is no natural system to stop the temperature increase. All the while levels of CO2 were up when it was cold and down when it was warm.
Yes, climate changes between two stable sets of warm temps during an interglacial period and very cold temps during periods of glaciation. Since glacial periods last about 100,000 years and interglacial periods last 15,000 to 20,000 years, it looks like the cold period is the more stable.
OT, but Lord Monckton is on the Mark Gillar show, and taking questions:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/markgillar
“toyotawhizguy (09:27:45) :
[…]
You’re mincing words. How can a projection not be a prediction, when the dictionary says otherwise?”
In statistics, a prediction is verifiable; a projection is not. AGWers themselves make sure to make this distinction.
very good. But wish it had explained a bit more some back ground earth science, like sea levels have been generally rising for 13,000 years, with some fits and stops, and the rises average 6″ / century for the last few thousand years. That tropical glaciers have been receding for thousands of years and that was slowed down by little ice age and the current pattern likely mimics the norm.
Arctic roos.org simply cannot afford to put up their graphs anymore because they are showing a continuous normal ice status
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
so they simply take them off…… what a farce its happens EVERYTIME ice goes up too much for their liking because records have been kept here and elsewhere:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/15/arctic-ice-extent-discrepancy-nsidc-versus-cryosphere-today/
This is the real status now
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
but they dont have the “average” so you cannot compare neither will Jaxa show that. NSIDC will only compare against 2007!
@pyromancer76 (05:53:15) :
Who mentioned two (2) years? I didn’t and nor did Von Storch. He talks about “several years”, but that suggests to me that he just thinks we have time on our side. and are no longer in a frantic hurry to curb emissions (they seem now to have noticed that the planet is not warming quite as fast as “previously thought”).
By the way, I am sure that the Chiefio would be “delighted” to take it all on his shoulders and knock it all off in a couple of days as you suggest. – and unpaid by the look of it or at knockdown price.
On the other hand, in my experience, the main problem is that once governments have forked out the cash, especially a lot of it, they are very reluctant to pay for it all over again even if the work has been botched, especially as admitting so reflects badly upon their judgement, hence they are likely pretend that all’s fine and dandy (they’re very good at that y’know).
But whichever way you look at it, the work has to be redone somehow, perhaps starting from differently framed questions.
I think we’re getting a little taste of the direction the MSM is going now… And it’s about fricken time !
This was a good attempt at sitting on middle ground rather than spouting the usual dogma, but as one poster previously put it : “schizophrenic article”… I think sums it up beautifully.
“Schizophrenic” will be the norm in the MSM for a while until they are able to completely plant their feet on solid ground once and for all. Not unlike how a person/group of persons releases themselves from any type of dogmatic belief system… it’s a long, slow process of transition with a few bumps along the way.
Amazing that Der Spiegel published this article. I had read Der Spiegel on the web for years until the Bush era when it got too hard to take the anti-American tone and generally “leftie” orientation. Die Welt (another German newspaper) is a bit easier to take for an American reader.
They got a lot wrong in the article as noted in the posts above; but for a widely read, and in my opinion (extremely) left-wing greenie publication, this article is just astounding. Seven parts; a flattering description of Steve M; wow. If you think they didn’t go far enough into the real truth of AGW – just have a look at the latest edition of Scientific American.
John Wright (19:35:41) :
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-686697,00.html
Thank you John for that link.
“Seven parts” whoops! I should have said eight…
Anthony, check it out http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=24823
Here’s another one for you Anthony: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1263207/Increase-Arctic-ice-confounds-doomsayers.html
R. Gates
I agree that it would appear that German climatologists haven’t given up on AGW (although one might read that they have given up on CAGW), but don’t you think that if you had given policy advice to your government on switching to antediluvian windmill tech and other methods of destroying your nation’s economy (Germany gets nearly all its energy from coal) and been promoted to chief government scientist for it that you might start backing away in small steps? Doesn’t “or we might have a completely different outcome” (excuse the estimated quote) tell us that regardless of what we believe, we really don’t know. Another hint of the backing away is to highlight that the real bad guys were the British.
If we really don’t know what is going to happen, then how can we be certain that it will continue to warm, that it is caused by humans and that there is nothing we can do to stop it?
And one more Anthony about this Spiegel series:
It looks like we’re all global warming skeptics now
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
04/02/10 4:43 PM EDT
My American Enterprise Institute colleagues Kenneth Green and Steven Hayward provide a pithy summary of this long article in Germany’s Der Spiegel entitled “A Superstorm for Global Warming Research.” Green and Hayward write:
“Far from parroting the ‘settled science’ canard, Der Spiegel points to many ‘open questions’ of the science, and says ‘anyone who speaks with leading climatologists today will discover how many questions remain open. The media, politicians and even scientists often talk about changes to the weather with a certainty that does not in fact exist.’ The authors are even willing to raise the ultimate heretical question: ‘Will the situation on the planet truly spin out of control if the average global temperature increases by more than two degrees Celsius?’
For a more pungent appreciation of the Der Spiegel article, read the Daily Telegraph’s James Delingpole. Sample: “When the Germans say Auf widersehen AGW [anthropogenic global warming], it really is time for the rest of the world to sit up and take notice.”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Were-all-global-warming-skeptics-now-89798067.html#ixzz0k4GU3nJS
Once again there is no assessment of how believable GCM results are that cannot match most of the 20th century. Fred Singer is right when he characterizes GCMs as a mere curve-fitting exercise (with no predictive capability). And as pointed out by rbateman (21:29:10), GCMs are trying to fit temperatures that have been adjusted.
Enneagram: “McIntyre asserts that he believes in Climate Change”
That is pitiful.
It’s not pitiful, it is simple acceptance of fact. Climate changes. Always has; always will — that is, unless the alarmists, against all likelihood, actually succeed in coercing global policies that cripple the natural mechanisms that cause the world ecosystem to breath in … breath out … as it’s been doing for eons, long before mankind came along.
When climate stops changing, the earth dies — or at least gets very sick.
It will begin with perhaps a century or two of slow decay, living off the momentum of millennia of climate dynamics, before the planet descends into a dull cream-soup of torpor; evolution grinds to a halt, local ecospheres fail to be cyclically refreshed as is essential to their health, and many species stagnate and die off. Bacteria and scavenging insects will thrive as long as the decay continues; if the earth is able to cleanse itself of the scourge of anthropogenic climate intervention before rigor mortis sets in, climates will return once again to their natural, ever-changing state, and the biosphere will slowly rise again from whatever level of primordial mush it has descended to.
Sorry. I’m not naturally dystopian in my outlook, but if we’re going to be alarmist, we might as well be sensible about truly alarming potential outcomes.
“In reality, it isn’t about stopping a luxury ocean liner, but about the massive effort that is required to end the age of oil and coal as quickly as possible…”
How romantic. And in our zeal to end our love affiar with “oil and coal,” we will turn out the lights and revert to a life of pre-industrial peasantry.
As Ross MicKitrick pointed out in response to the touchy-feely Earth Hour blackout:
“Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance . . . depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity. . . I don’t want to go back to nature. Haiti just went back to nature. People who work to end poverty and disease are fighting against nature.”
The AGW movement is animated by a deep-seated hatred of capitalism and the material advances that have brought some measure of comfort to mankind. The nature-lovers who recklessly demonize the extraction and use of life-giving fossil fuels are pushing us towards another hellish Dark Ages.
Over and over, I ask, “Why wasn’t this ‘humans did it all’ accusation addressed back in 1988-1990?”
It is utterly ridiculous that at this late stage such fundamental questions are just now being asked.
It is utterly ridiculous that at this late stage such fundamental questions are just now being asked.
This is all comes down to the way it has been sold as “settled science”. Al Gore became the arbiter of off things settled in 1993, and had very much control over who was funded by the US government until 2001. After that there was no point in studying any of the basics.
Why study something that is settled?
France to organize public debate about Global Warming!
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5474&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co2sceptics%2Fnews+%28CO2sceptics+News+Blog%29
Meanwhile, CNN has a hard hitting piece on Scientology.
R. de Haan:
“France to organize public debate about Global Warming!”
Hey this is great – I love it. And check this out as well:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/04/claude-allegre-dismisses-useless-and.html
@Doug in Seattle (16:51:15) :
You guys sure like beating up on Al Gore! But it predates his involvement. He became their huckster. No argument there. And he is getting the crap beat out of him about that.
But it’s bigger than Al Gore and kicking him.
How about everybody ELSE that ran around yelling “Consensus! Consensus!”
Those who were part of the “consensus” – it turns out they didn’t even know what they were agreeing with, since now everyone is saying that the evidence isn’t really there.
If it wasn’t, what in the HELL were they consenting to?
Boy, if they don’t get it by now:
Science is not about talking people into something. It is about can you back up your work with predictions and replication? And is your data solid?
I love this bit:
A bunch of guys whose data housekeeping is like Delta House’s frat house – these are the guys who had the world wanting to spend several trillion dollars on something burped up by James Hansen and Mike Mann.
Anyone know why the arctic-roos site has been down for a few days?
The world may yet spend trillions – look at California. Actual scientific endorsement of AGW may be years away, but policy has been legislated and implementation through regulation is coming this year for implementation in 2012. Climategate? IPPC factual problems? Please don’t disturb California staff, we are working too hard to implement this law. France says it won’t act on costly measures until neighbors do too? How unsympathetic to the world’s condition. California will lead the way. Costs of allowances are not a cost to the economy – says a leading economic report. So who is going to pay???
Shsss, don’t tell them, Californians will pay, and rightly too.
Actually, I was wrong that there had been no analysis of raw global data (at least on the skeptical side). Jeff ID comes up with a warmer trend using raw data instead of adjusted.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/global-gridded-ghcn-trend-by-seasonal-offset-anomaly-matching/
Same at The Blackboard, (but not posted by a skeptic):
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/a-simple-model-for-spatially-weighted-temp-analysis/
Which corroborates the analyses done by AGWers or neutral contributors:
http://rhinohide.wordpress.com/crutemp/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/ (samples)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/false-claims-proven-false/
The last post deals with station dropout, too. Here’s another.
http://clearclimatecode.org/the-1990s-station-dropout-does-not-have-a-warming-effect/
And another on station drop-out done by comparing satellite to surface records.
http://keithpickering.blogspot.com/2010/02/station-dropout-problem-more-non.html
And a histogram of adjustments to the global temperature record.
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/
(Corroborating the realclimate histogram from samples in the post I linked above)
As a side note, it would, at the least, be fair play for Anthony Watts and Joe D’Aleo to retract or modify their comments on warm bias in the adjusted global record – or else soon substantiate their criticism by crunching the numbers for the global data set. I cannot fathom why they did not perform this obviously necessary analysis before publishing their criticisms.
barry (22:20:12)
Can’t see a hockey stick in Jeff’s work.
Just a slight increase from another warmish peak in the 1850s as the world slowly and intermittently recovered from the LIA.
You miss the point, Stephen. Jeff ID clearly shows there is no warm bias in the adjusted global record. He shows that the trend after adjustments is actually cooler than raw. Same result at Lucia’s and Tamino’s, etc.
barry (01:32:40)
I don’t think it has all been unravelled properly yet so I’ll reserve judgement on that issue.
The raw data itself is suspect from UHI and siting issues.
I don’t see that the point gets you very far anyway. Demonstrating that there was no undue manipulation of the raw data (and the jury is still out on that) doesn’t help in justifying the creation of a hockey stick curve or speculating wildly about the scale of human contributions to a naturally changing climate.
barry (01:32:40) :
You miss the point, Stephen. Jeff ID clearly shows there is no warm bias in the adjusted global record. He shows that the trend after adjustments is actually cooler than raw. Same result at Lucia’s and Tamino’s, etc.
Of course they do, they are biased and use the same lousy Gridding tricks as the CRU.
Take a look at Chefio’s analysis of the Raw Data if you really want to be educated.
barry (22:20:12) :
Have you looked at all of the Independent temperature Analysis, i.e. people not working for an organisation involved with the IPCC, because all of the ones you quote are involved.
A C Osborn,
Jeff ID’s and Lucia’s are skeptical blogs. I highlighted that fact above. It strengthens the result.
I’ve looked at all the analyses I could find.
I don’t think Chiefo’s done a full global analysis of the centennial temperature record with raw data. I have read some of his stuff on raw data for specific locations, but not global and not the centennial record. Please link me up if I’m wrong.
Stephen,
Demonstrating that there was no undue manipulation of the raw data (and the jury is still out on that) doesn’t help in justifying the creation of a hockey stick curve or speculating wildly about the scale of human contributions to a naturally changing climate.
The ‘hockey stick’ refers to paleoclimate reconstructions over centuries using proxy data. The subject I’m talking about is the alleged warm bias in the instrumental record of the last 130/160 years (depending on the surface record being compared).
They are two different things. It appears that you do not understand this, or that you wish to move the goal posts.
The ‘jury’ comprises skeptics and proponents alike and they come to the same conclusion. Anthony Watts and Joe D’Aleo have not done this necessary number-crunching, yet they have published claims that the global instrumental record is warm biased. That was before others did the work. They, like you, should have reserved judgment – or better yet, done the work themselves.
REPLY: Well unlike you, we at least put our names to our work. I’m never much impressed by lecturing from anonymous cowards. – A
The raw data itself is suspect from UHI and siting issues.
Yes, that’s why they adjust it. As it turns out, the adjusted trend is cooler – maybe they got rid of UHI.
Ref – RockyRoad (08:41:37) :
Enneagram (06:58:19) :
“McIntyre asserts that he believes in Climate Change”
That is pitiful.
———————–
“Only an idiot would not.”
_________________________
Second the motion!
PS: If we’re talking about the Science!!!!! If on the other hand we’re talking about the religion of “Climate Change and Manmade Disaster and the Great Prophet Fat Albert” then I retract my motion.
REPLY: Well unlike you, we at least put our names to our work. I’m never much impressed by lecturing from anonymous cowards. – A
I am never impressed by name-calling.
Putting a name to a bad argument doesn’t make it any better, and a good argument is not compromised by not knowing the identity of the author.
The topic is still there for you to address substantively if you wish.
REPLY: Actually it’s not name calling, its a label that originates from slashdot.org and is used daily for situations such as yourself. Off to the troll bin then. -A